While reading moral-skepticism-and-moral-disagreement-developing-an-argument-from-nietzsche
(go on, have a read, you know you ought to want to) I remarked to Mr HG as he passed through on his way to lunch:
" The trouble with Marx is he was a really rotten philosopher."
(Preprandial exchanges are more usually on the lines of, 'You might like the lasagne but you'll need to warm it, and there are some little lamb chops and washed salad in the fridge').
To which he replied, in the spirit of the moment:
"I never thought Marx was much of a philosopher," pause, "Or of an economist, come to think of it." pause, "He was a revolutionary propagandist; he belongs with agitprop."
"His main contribution to economics was a theory of the evolution of economic systems, which he called modes of production. Based on the rise of contradictions in society and their resolution through institutional change. He was aware of that, for he wrote, to Engels, claiming to have done for political economy what Darwin had done for the species. Unfortunately here he made three most serious mistakes:
he gave primacy to economic factors (materialism);
secondly he believed that there was a necessary and irreversible sequence in the appearance of successive systems;
thirdly he believed there was one, superior system - communism - which would abolish classes and, therefore social conflicts and contradictions, and be the final solution."
Never get between Mr HG and his lunch. It makes him dismissive beyond his usual inclination.
Friday, 2 April 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
well my post-prandial observation is that Nietzsche never seemed (to me) to be rejecting realism per se (maybe not even 'moral realism', I'd need to think about that); but he was very taken with the inevitable psychological aspects of human reasoning
this results in a kind of Heisenberg uncertainty: there could be a reality out there but in any event your ability to get at it, undistorted, is defeated by the very act of approaching it at all
anyway
seamen make very interesting moralists because they've encountered so much, in so many strange ports
now lead me to those Hot Cross Buns ...
Velly solly, but we innumerate 'O' level but well travelled readers have not the faintest idea of what either of you are on about.
Happy Easter to all.
You are justly proud to be married to a man with such an acute mind.
My husband, my hero, S. It's all the rage. (He knows his Marx better than most, not that it has made him in the least revolutionary in the agitprop sense. In a grand conference with a grand speaker who was laying on the rhetoric thickly - 'Mr Marx this...' and 'Mr Marx that..' Mr HG remarked,
"Dr Marx."
Consternated, grand speaker paused; did his target have a PhD? Had he dissed a fellow academic?
Oh yes he had. A chap from the University of Jena (Hegel's university, I think) denied his proper title. The talk never recovered.
Do you think, ND, that if you are a chippy, unclear, impecunious philosophy student from Thuringia, who has been denied a university post, you can do anything other than become an agitator/propagandist for your own (decried) philosophical line; supported by a rich, Manchester manufacturer with Utilitarian leanings. And in another country?
(And a misogynist, adds Mr HG, which he thinks is a deeply important part of Marx's psychological aspect. And he wore a beard to hid his lack of chin. Beards covering multitudinous inadequacies.)
Usually there aren't links to other arguments in Angels, Nomad. Some attempt is made to synthesize and present the argument as part of the post. But professional philosophers posting on Nietzsche are digested at an Angel's peril; follow the link to step aboard ND's train of thought.
I'm still trying to work out why Sackerson presented that division in all those steps; doesn't he know his tables?
A very happy Easter to you Nomad.
anything other than become an agitator/propagandist for your own (decried) philosophical line
you could, of course, become a blogger ...
anyway give the chap a break - misogynist beardie, but he did have something to say
grasping the concept of 'capital' is pretty important to an understanding of, well, quite a lot; and drawing attention to the question of how capital comes into being is a worthwhile service
If you choose to look at profit as exploitation you don't need the labour theory of value to prove it; you just note that the share of wages is less than 1.
So another drawback is that he was a windbag who could have got to the point sooner.
The market system is not total chaos; most of the time it yields the benefits of the division of labour in society.
Poor chap though; first he's beaten to the draw by Hegel; then he goes to England to enlighten the savages and finds he's been beaten to the draw by the English classical economists.
And much of what was his original thinking was actually wrong. Transformation problems of labour values into prices should not have diverted the attention of some beautiful minds from the real world.
HG, I rise to your fly. The division was broken down to show (a) how it could be done mentally and (b) that it did not require the conversion of the whole sum to pence first.
And I doubt you do anything simply because it's all the rage.
Post a Comment